PANCHU Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri D. K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing counsel.

(2.) The petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the opposite parties to provide the pension to the petitioner with effect from the date of his retirement i.e. 31.8.2007 with all consequential benefits counting entire service of the petitioner and the same be clubbed for computation of qualifying services.

(3.) The petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Beldar in the year 1978 as a muster roll employee and thereafter he was declared in the work charged establishment after completion of 8 years of satisfactory services on the said post on 1.4.1986 in the pay scale. Thereafter, the services of the petitioner were regularized on 27.11.1998. In all, the petitioner has worked in the department for almost thirty years. These facts are not disputed by the opposite parties. The petitioner retired on 31.8.2007 and since his services were regularized on 27.11.1998, he did not have ten years of regular services to his credit at the time of his retirement. Since there was? deficiency of about one year, two months and 26 days, the opposite parties refused to grant pension to the petitioner on the ground that work charged/daily wage services can not be computed for the purposes of allowing pensionary benefits. This question has perturbed the Court every time the case is filed before the Court. There are a number of judgments and a lot of confusion has always been there in the minds of the executive whether or not to grant pension by computing the work charge periods of the employee.